Re: [boost] [next gen future-promise] What to call the monadic returntype?

Subject: Re: [boost] [next gen future-promise] What to call the monadic returntype?
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-26 10:40:26

On 26 May 2015 at 14:07, Peter Dimov wrote:

> I also disagree with the implicit expectation that a programming style based 
> on expected<T, error_code> will take the world by storm. It won't. 
> Exceptions are much more convenient and make for clearer code. C++ 
> programmers are not Haskell programmers and don't want to be; they don't use 
> monads and do-statements. There is no need. 

Get some experience programming in Rust and come back to me.

I think you'll realise that monadic programming is going to become 
huge in C++ 11/14 in the near future in those use case scenarios 
where it is far better than all other idioms. We just need a decent 
not-Haskell monad implementation that doesn't get in the way of C++ 
programming. But for sure, this is a personal opinion, and yours is 
just is valid as mine right now until we see where the code trends 
to.

BTW for reference the Rust Result<> monad *does* get in the way. I 
think we can do a lot better in C++, something more natural to 
program with and use.

Niall

-- 
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ 
http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/